--

Image: General Mills

     Just a couple of weeks ago, General Mills added a small grey banner to the top of their website notifying visitors of an update to their privacy policy and legal terms, also noting that 'all disputes relating to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved for binding arbitration.' In essence, this removes the rights of customers to dispute cases against General Mills in court, (apart from exceptions in small claims court) should the customer(s) agree to the terms and conditions.
     More specifically, customers must attempt to resolve any dispute through informal negotiations with the company for at least thirty days before choosing to go to small claims court or resolving the dispute through arbitration. In agreeing to the terms, customers also waive their right to litigate any dispute in court and before a jury. But what constitutes an agreement? According to General Mills, a customer 'agrees' to their terms by 'using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community... or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering' among other things.
     This broadening of definition is a clear attempt by General Mills to reduce its accountability and protect itself from litigation. While this is not the first time a company has introduced a policy of binding arbitration, the attempts by General Mills to slip these terms past their customers with its questionable definition of acceptance is expected to spark legal issues, particularly over the ambiguity of the policy.
   Though these actions are understandable, they raise questions over the freedom of companies to determine policy. While companies should be free to create their own rules, all companies must follow certain broad guidelines in order to participate in a federally governed marketplace. Courts might see this new policy as an overextension by General Mills, and certain experts have already said that customers must be aware of the terms and conditions for them to be applicable. The outcome of this initial controversy has the potential to redefine business as we know it, and other large companies will be watching the General Mills case intently. Personally, while binding arbitration (if a bit suspect) is not unethical, more effort should be put into notifying customers of this drastic change in policy, and I hope that if any cases are claimed against General Mills in the coming weeks, that they won't be dismissed just because the customer has redeemed a 'box top for education', or 'liked' General Mills' Facebook page.

More Here: New York Times